muddi

Last time I made a dish spanning that many cuisines, it turned out to be very average, maybe not surprisingly. Glad it worked for you though! I didn't expect garam masala to be in there lol

It's only relevant for some specific religions. It's not particularly important for most people who have or will exist.

Every country but one in the americas is a settler state in origin

Which one is this? I feel like I probably know already but it is eluding my mind right now

Hmm if no BT devices or other sessions, then it must be an issue with your phone. Maybe check if you are running an automations like alarms or smart routines, or if some button or sensor is malfunctioning.

Basically your phone is triggering music playback at unexpected times, but you're not sure the disconnect between why your phone expects it when you don't. That's the question I'd be asking myself

You might possibly be hacked from what I'm reading. Spotify can let you control music on one device from another.

I noticed that it can take a while to switch from mobile to desktop, but not the other way around, so maybe someone has access to your account, tries to play it on their device but it starts on your mobile first. Check in your account options for anything about connected devices and log ins

Where are they thanking God for that?

"suffer"

If you want a treat, look up noun incorporation in polysynthetic languages. Or perhaps rather:

if you treatwant, you should nounincorporationinpolysyntheticlanguageslookup

Designing the optimal governing system is idealist, but I do admit I am interested in the topic. My picks are sociocracy and liquid democracy, which might be described like a crossover between direct democracy and technocratic representation

In the end though, it's dependent on material conditions how we should organize ourselves

I remember in school when we had US history for the sixth time for social studies class, they taught us again about the early debates in the Federalist Papers on how the baby democracy might turn into a monster by allowing the majority to win votes somehow

Obviously it's better to have a tyranny of the minority than the tyranny of the majority, some dead guy in a wig said so

The stat that horrifies me is how a person can consume multiple lives in one sitting. Like every two chicken wings equals one life slaughtered, and people get orders of 8 pieces at once, maybe multiple times a day or for multiple people.

I guess cows, pigs, horses, whatever are bigger animals and feed more people, but it's still messed up to me to know that one small meat snack requires the slaughter of an entire animal. It's not like we can amputate their legs and only eat that part.

I think I'd still feel the same knowing the cost of lives of other products. Like how many lives had to be lost to mine the cobalt in each of my electronic devices

Interestingly I was having a conversation with myself about this. That ethics, law, and other normative systems are just sets of rules, just like how physical reality follows laws of nature.

The difference is that the "metric" of reality is existence itself — the measure is that something exists, or it doesn't: there isn't anything that violates the laws of nature that exists.

But in the human realm, there must be some metric ("good" vs "bad" ) that drives measures (ethical/legal/profitable/etc. vs not). But also there are indeterminates (neither moral nor immoral) or disputes, because there are many systems under existence (your moral vs my moral).

I also don't know what I was trying to say tbh, someone started screaming on the bus at that point. I guess basically just that humans tend to silo their conceptions of things which don't match up with each other perfectly already, let alone realizing that the ultimate reality of things doesn't give a fuck about our conventions.

Building a perfect system or even a minimally common-to-all system seems like a fool's errand, like liberalism "we just need to declare human rights that no one can disagree with, and then no one will violate them" fucking Kant and Rawls